Head and Foot

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • The message board is open 8:30am ET Tuesdays to 4pm ET Thursdays. Posts cannot be made outside of board hours.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Neil W

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2008
1,203
2,592
Isle of Wight UK
Two things about this excellent movie:

One, given the extent to which the book takes place in Paul's head - nearly unfilmable - the adaptation did very well to capture the book's essence so strongly.

Two, I can understand why they took the line they did with the foot, but I preferred what happened in the book! :D
 

Riot87

Love him forever
Mar 7, 2014
2,354
13,812
32
United States
Two things about this excellent movie:

One, given the extent to which the book takes place in Paul's head - nearly unfilmable - the adaptation did very well to capture the book's essence so strongly.

Two, I can understand why they took the line they did with the foot, but I preferred what happened in the book! :D


I agree with the foot part that always got on my nerves that they changed it.
 

blunthead

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2006
80,755
195,450
Atlanta GA
In William Goldman's book Which Lie Did I Tell?, Goldman, the screenwriter for Misery, fought tooth and nail to include in the movie the exact book-version of the hobbling sequence (exclaiming something to the effect that the writing was the greatest thing he'd ever read in his life). But later states that director Rob Reiner and the producers were correct in their decision not to put it on the screen that way; that they were were right in feeling it would've been too much for an average audience.
 

mcpon14

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2014
1,129
5,514
32
The scene in the movie induces the terror it's supposed to. I think if they had done it the way it's done in the book it would have become the ultimate gross-out. I think the execs at Castle Rock were correct in their thinking- the audience (at that time) wouldn't have been able to handle it.
I agree. I think it is to get a wider audience because the market for that kind of violence is too narrow.
 

Kingfisher

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2015
55
275
28
If you think about it, that form of hobbling would have been more effective to keep a person captive. The visceral effect of cutting off an appendage and cauterizing it has a psychological terror attached to it but the limb itself would heal and a stump can be somewhat functional I'd guess. Completely reshattering a leg is a whole different story. That limb is basically unusable, the captive would be going nowhere without being in excruciating pain.
 

Pucker

We all have it coming, kid
May 9, 2010
2,906
6,240
58
I see the hobbling as a more immediate visual image. I think it works better on film because it's dead-bang. You see it coming the same way you would see the electric knife coming, but the actual crack of the hammer is more "right now," whereas your imagination can take as long as it likes to work out your foot being sawn off -- and how long that might take -- when you read about it.

It's the difference between that sudden "gasp" moment and a more drawn-out "shuddering" moment.

Or so it seems to me.
 

Aericanwizard

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2011
218
306
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I recently watched the film "Audition", which contains a much more violent form of hobbling than the film version of "Misery".

One character removes another's foot with piano wire.

I couldn't watch it. It's not overly graphic, but my stomach was still doing flips on me.
 
If It Bleeds - New Collection Coming 5/5/20 The Institute - Available Now Flight or Fright - Now Available in Trade Paperback!